The lead plaques form a library of over one hundred (possibly two hundred) of relief inscriptions – written in an unknown language with mostly Greek characters and lavishly illustrated – that speak about the Getic and Dacian civilization. The plaques were photographed during WW2 by Dan Romalo, in the basement of Bucharest’s Antiquities Museum, with the archeologist Ioan Nestor’s intent to publish. Marioara Golescu, a young researcher, was about to publish these plaques as a forgery attempt. According to I. Nestor’s statement, the plaques appeared in the museum in the times of Grigore Tocilescu, somewhere between the 19^th and 20^th century.  No one ever doubted their unauthenticity, no one ever published them (unfortunately neither Marioara Golescu did), no researcher ever studied them. The plaques never benefited from an inventory or a summary mention in any written paper. 35 plaques reappeared (there is no mention where from) in 2002 and are now at the “Vasile Pârvan” Archeological Institute in Bucharest. Two more plaques rest at the Sinaia Monastery, and a few more, of smaller sizes and diverse materials can be found in private collections or Romanian museums.

No one knows were does this library of plaques comes from, but oral traditions states that the leaded artifacts were made in the last quarter of the 19^th century, on King Carol the 1^st orders, from the gold originals, discovered in a thesaurus from Poiana Văcăriei in Sinaia, were the Peleş Castle was to be built. Most likely, after the birth of the Antiquities Museum (in 1881), the copies were transferred to Bucharest. The only that we can fully count on is that the lead plaques found nowadays in Bucharest come from Sinaia, an information that is traditionally passed on by the Antiquities Museum, as has been certified by academician Alexandru Vulpe.

In 2003 Dan Romalo put to good use a part of the photos (sadly most of the photos were destroyed by time and so were the negatives) in the Apocryphal Chronicle on lead plaques? volume published by Arvin Press Bucharest and re-edited in 2005 under the name of Apocryphal Getic Chronicle on lead plaques? by Alcor publishing house, Bucharest. We have today, thanks to this book, almost 50 new photographs taken from long gone plaques, to whom we may add 35 recovered items. Dan Romalo launched for the first time the hypothesis of the authenticity of the plaques (even though he questioned it) and was the first to have soundly studied the whole library, transcribed the texts and attempted to decode them. Probably the lack of special training in this domain – that would have given him authority – or even inertia, skepticism and the bad belief of some scientists (to whom we may add some occult interests) unjustly out banned him from all credibility, although his efforts were considerable and his methods sound. Even after the book was published, the subject continued to be regarded as unimportant. Taking all this into account, the extent and complexity of the library clearly points out, even in the case of a possible forgery, a truly brilliant mind.

 The analysis carried out at the Physics and Nuclear Engineering Institute in Bucharest by Dr. Bogdan Constantinescu in may 2004 showed a lead composition very similar to that used in typography lead in the 19^th century, confirming the hypothesis of the copies or of a possible forgery. The hypothesis of antique, original lead is very hard to sustain now. Although, analysis carried out on a single item in Oxford, item 023, by Dr. Peter Northover, left the debate open, as he proved that the lead from this item is nearly similar to that of a cramp removed from Sarmizegetusa’s wall and used as witness item. (ROMALO 2005: 291-292). The lack of funding, destined to more precise analysis of all remaining items, impedes us from drawing a clearer conclusion.

The National Treasury specialist, that we consulted, has estimated, on technical details that we are in front of a sort of speedy copies after originals, rather than modern creations.

Our research began as soon as Romalo’s first book edition saw daylight (in the autumn of 2003). We held a session of communications in November 2003 at the Linguistics Institute in Bucharest, a conference in June 2004 at the Romanian Academy and a second conference in January 2005 at the “Vasile Pârvan” Archeology Seminar held by the Faculty of History from the University of Bucharest.

Now there is not any official study program, or at least one of protecting the items, which are still not inventoried and poorly kept. The lack of interest shown by scientists (be it linguistic or historical ones) and institutions that should have studied this archive is doubled by the enthusiasm of some day-dreaming “translators”, that lack even the minimum of training and that bring nothing more than disbelief to the matter. Even if the good intentions of these people are not questioned, the results they have intoxicate the public opinion, bring compromise to the delicate subject and send away more specialists.